‘IN open societies where both scientists and the general public are equipped with critical skills and the tools of inquiry, not least enabled by the information revolution provided through the Internet, the ethos of science as open, questioning, critical and anti-dogmatic should and can be defended also by the public at large. Efforts to make people bow uncritically to the authority of a dogmatic representation of Science, seems largely to produce ridicule, opposition and inaction, and ultimately undermines the legitimacy and role of both science and politics in open democracies.’
That’s the final paragraph in a new report by Emil A. Røyrvik; a social anthropologist and senior research scientists at SINTEF Technology and Society, Scandinavia’s largest independent research organisation.
The report about “the debate on man-made global warming” including an analysis of “the four myths of climate change”, “the hockey stick”, “climategate” and surveys and petitions of dissenting and contrarian positions.
Dr Røyrvik comes at the issue from an academic perspective and very clearly articulates the strength of the consensus position but also the logic of the contrarians – as he labels us. 
The section on philosophy of science reminded me what science is meant to be about…
‘Although seeking an open, (self)critical and impartial analysis, this report is, like any other human expression, based on some premises. This report is inspired by social studies of science and technology (STS) and it is necessary to briefly outline the epistemological premises that the analysis in this report is grounded in. That is, from the outset to highlight the report’s main underlying assumptions about the role and status of science in society. The report is based in the sociology of science in the form outlined especially by influential thinkers such as Robert K. Merton and Karl Polanyi. In general, Merton’s (1973) famous norms of science form the report’s epistemological gaze. Merton outlined what he termed the four sets of institutional imperatives that comprise the ethos of modern science. These four were communism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized scepticism. Already forming the catching “CUDOS” acronym, later philosophers of science have added “originality” to Merton’s list, making the acronym even more fitting.
‘In later commonly accepted versions based on Merton (e.g. Ziman 2000) the ethos of science entails Communalism in the sense that scientific results are publicly shared by the entire scientific community; Universalism, in the sense that claims to truth are evaluated in terms of universal and
impersonal criteria, independent of terms such as race, class, gender, religion and nationality; Disinterestedness, understood in the sense that scientists should act for the common good of science, rather than for personal gain; Originality in research contributions; and Scepticism
(Organized Scepticism) through rigorous, systematic and critical scrutiny of all scientific claims by the scientific community. This last norm is achieved through peer-review and open publication.‘Merton and followers consider these principles to be both goals and methods of science and that they are binding to scientists. In a complementary vein Michael Polanyi outlined his views on “the republic of science” (1962), a classic defence of the autonomy of the scientific endeavour. While not discarding the importance of science’s contribution to society, he argued that this could and should only be achieved under scientific self-governance: “… we reject today the interference of political or religious authorities with the pursuit of science [and] we must do this in the name of the established scientific authority which safeguards the pursuit of science”. Following Polanyi, imposing societal goals to the “Society of Explorers” would inhibit its spontaneity and freedom, and as a consequence the quality and results (also societal) of scientific inquiry. This argument highlight a continuing conflict regarding the role of science in society, on the one hand its free and unhampered pursuit of truth and the revealing of the world, and on the other hand society’s arguably legitimate interest in securing some instrumental goals and usefulness from scientific labors. Obviously, this tensional science-policy interface is at the core of the controversy related to climate science and the IPCC.
Download the full report here:
Consensus and Controversy: The Debate on Man-Made Global Warming
SINTEF A24071. 2013_04_12
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The main guide to good science, as in all endeavours, is honesty.
Deming has an article in the Washington Times about the real deniers:
“With each passing year, it is becoming increasingly clear that global warming is not a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification, but a political ideology that has to be fiercely defended against any challenge. It is ironic that skeptics are called “deniers” when every fact that would tend to falsify global warming is immediately explained away by an industry of denial.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/the-real-deniers-of-climate-change/
Even Pachauri ( IPCC head) in the Australian newspaper interview admitted there has been a pause in warming for 17 years.
Also there has been a shift by the MSM, with some former promoters of AGW and sometimes CAGW now questioning some of their past beliefs.
But here in OZ we still have Robyn “100 metres Williams” and “GAIA brain” Flannery and the Climate Commission valiantly promoting their cause.
Scafetta has just released his new study ( 2013) on SLR that seems to show very little change other than a correlation with the PDO, NOA and the AMO.
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/10.1007_s00382-013-1771-3.pdf
As we write the adjusted satellite measurements show about 30cm SLR by 2100 and Scafetta and others show 30 cm or less.
So where is this dangerous SLR that this Labor govt and their scientists keep telling us about? Even their own models show little SLR for the next 300 years from 99% of the planet’s ice mass.
Of course the next question is, where is the dangerous AGW or CAGW they have warned us about for the last 30 years?
Thought I’d lift this from Jo Nova’s site from a comment I made yesterday. Just more to refute the mitigation con and fraud our clueless govt keeps peddling.
The world is on target to build 1200 new coal plants. So much for concerns about dangerous co2 emissions. What a load of stupid BS from our liars and fraudsters.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/20/coal-plants-world-resources-institute
Of course Germany is joining the rush, even after wasting 130 billion $ on useless, unreliable, super expensive solar and wind energy. I pity their poor long suffering taxpayers.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/23/germany-to-open-six-more-coal-power-stations-in-2013/#more-84720
Don’t forget the Greens and the barking mad Labor left want to close all our coal fired plants. If anyone even dared to suggest that we should build even one new reliable coal plant these idiots would throw a hissy fit that would be heard from Darwin to Hobart.
Noticed the other day that Hawaii is totally dependent on ENSO for rain, now Bob Tisdale shows that SST has a rhythm of its own.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/figure-15.png
Gawwwd help protect us from delusional academic twits. Just listened to a Uni Prof talking about the production of bio-char on their ABC country hour.
He said we must produce more biochar so we can tranfer co2 from the atmosphere to the soil. It was most important because of the threat of AGW and the Fed govt should spend heaps more to reduce the price of this biochar from $800 a tonne to perhaps 200 or 300 $.
A pity he wasn’t made aware of the fact that up to 1200 new coal plants will be built in the coming years and his idiotic plans wouldn’t make a scrap of difference to the climate or temp or SLR or wild weather or fires or rainfall etc anyway.
I’m sure he would successfully waste billion$ more if only he had the chance. Just typical of the madness one expects from their ABC and some climate scientists.
Entertaining post at WUWT discussing the greenhouse effect. Monckton weighs in to address some of misconceptions and Roy Spencer answers some of the bloggers.
Good stuff and even I can understand a good part of it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/24/spencer-slays-with-sarcasm/#more-84802
An informative series of posts by you Neville.Thanks
The biochar one is an example of where, something called Biochar is generally vg for soils, irrespective of whether it has anything to do with the scam called GW.
Fortunately it looks like the CSIRO is doing some good work here.
Malcolm I agree BChar is good for soils but its addition must cover all the costs used in its production or we’re just wasting more money AGAIN.
I just maintain it wouldn’t help to mitigate AGW at all.
“Good stuff and even I can understand a good part of it.”
Yes Neville, and it make you realise what big gaps there are in the practical science.
The lukewarm sceptics seem to have the theory more correct but it would not surprise me if the slayers are nearer the mark in practical terms.
But as they say, if you get the right answer via the wrong process, you are still wrong.
Even if you’re right. ☺
And I think Abdussimov might be right.
Jen,
Seems to fit this thread
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/4/25/bruckners-opus.html
A. Ian your link seems to agree with the nonsense from the extremists that Lomborg and Ridley have been fighting against.
BTW here is Spencer and Christy’s UAH satellite record as well as RSS satellite compared to all the models.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/#comments
Looks like the two satellite observations produce a very flat graph indeed compared to an average of the models.
It also seems that the feedback from more co2 is not positive but negative.
This is a good question by DJC:
“Doug Cotton (DJC) says:
April 24, 2013 at 6:39 PM
One simple question for Roy and anyone else
If the 33 degrees of warming were not due to the gravitationally-induced thermal gradient (the existence of which I consider proven in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures“) but were instead due to a greenhouse effect, then, most of that GH warming (say 30 degrees) would be due to water vapour. But, if water vapour warms so much (rather than, as I found empirically, cools by about 5 degrees) then where is the evidence of widely varying degrees of warming which match the widely varying percentages of water vapour found in different locations on Earth?
Let’s see if anyone answers within 48 hours.”
I think everyone should watch this video from Reason tv featuring Matt Ridley talking about the greening of the planet.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/14/a-must-watch-greening-the-planet-dr-matt-ridley/
He lists all the benefits for the planet and the environment because of human
use of fossil fuels and increased co2 emissions. His list is very long and I would love to see anybody try and debate him on this subject.
I’ve watched him debating on youtube and he is very smart. But he also has a very strong and cultured voice and he seems to always speak with authority.
He would be very hard to beat. In my estimate he and Lomborg have helped to carry the day as well as the sceptical scientists.
yeah, I’ve seen that Matt Ridley video Neville.
I’m just sick of it all.
We’ve followed “the science’ for years now and it doesn’t shape up. We are aware that it’s all BS. CO2 increases, temps remain static, the heat isn’t hiding in the deep oceans and the AGW theory is a failure.
Please, can’t we now move on?
John I couldn’t agree with you more. But why don’t we move on and not lock ourselves into the delusional fraud and super ponzi scheme of so called AGW mitigation ?
We know this is a rock solid 100% fraud because the maths is as simple as it can be, yet we still have the Gillard govt stating we are” tackling CC or taking action on CC”.
But why don’t the MSM or at least a few more journos use a few brains and decency and challenge this mitigation fraud?
Surely they can’t all be stupid and unable to understand simple kindy maths? Bernie Madoff was a rank amateur by comparison and his giant ponzi scheme was a tiny flea bite compared to the waste and cost of AGW mitigation.
Yet he will likely spend the rest of his life in jail for his lies, theft,fraud and manipulation. BTW I would also keep the swine in jail until he died, no problems at all.
Neville, to me it’s like the solar power debate. Clearly, anyone who investigates the solar panels on homes fiasco will realise
1. the power company doesn’t need the paltry amount of power generated.
2. the power company is forced to pay you for your paltry amount of power.
3. those without solar panels are paying for those who have them, initially the installation subsidy, then ongoing when power is fed back into the grid.
4. the peak consumption times for power are in the morning when everyone is cooking breakfast and going to work and in the late afternoon/evening when people are returning from work and cooking. Solar power doesn’t operate in either of those peak times.
It would just take ONE CEO of a major power supplier to speak out and tell it as it is, yet they don’t.
I agree with everything you’re saying John and don’t forget those useless, unreliable, super expensive solar panels require full time back up from reliable energy delivery stations like coal, gas or hydro.
Jo Nova has a very good current post exposing the solar panel fraud and the wasted billions $ to prop it up.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/one-million-useless-solar-panels/#comments
‘The Assessment is woefully ignorant of humanity’s ability to adapt and prosper in response to challenges. The quintessence of this is the truly dreadful chapter on human health and climate change.
‘While death, disease, poverty and injustice are all conjured by warming, there is not one mention of the fact that life expectancy in the U.S. is approximately twice what it was in the year 1900, or that per-capita income in real dollars is over ten times what it was then. It emphasizes diseases that will somehow spread because of warming, neglecting the fact that many were largely endemic when it was colder and were eradicated as we warmed a bit.’
Pat Michaels et al CATO Institute
Here is a link to the Curry, Lomborg etc testimony before US govt sub committee yesterday.
http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-environment-hearing-policy-relevant-climate-issues-context
The video is on the top right of the page. If you skip the first part and watch from Dr Curry on you’ll probably reduce the time to about an hour.
Lomborg was very good as usual and his presentation had a number of graphs etc to help make his case.
Judith Curry was OK but seemed a bit quiet and not forceful enough. The other prof got caught out a bit by a couple of the tougher questions from the more serious pollies.
The question part was good and I think the majority of the pollies ( but not all) are a wake up to the folly of throwing anymore money at mitigation.
John, Australians are stupid enough when it comes to this self-delusion and hymn-book religion of rooftop solar but can you but wonder how canny Scots could be conned into this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2314726/Are-sure-going-work-Scotlands-solar-meadow-opens-grey-skies-rain.html
Spangled solar didn’t work in Germany and they are now changing to brown coal for future energy needs. Poor Scottish energy users and poor taxpayers. Massive extra spend for a big fat ZERO return.
Simple geography/latitude , sunshine hours and very simple kindy maths.
At WUWT a new paper from Morner and Parker shows that SLR around OZ could be as little as 5 inches or 125mm by 2100.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/26/australian-sea-level-data-highly-exaggerated-only-5-inches-by-2100/#more-84947
Of course the Gillard govt is claiming it could be up to 1 metre or eight times that 125mm finding of Morner/ Parker.
But remember Robyn Williams of ABC science??? show informed the Bolter in 2007 that 100 metres is possible.
That’s 800 times higher than the Morner /Parker estimate. Gobbels would be so proud of him.
Since his claim he has fallen behind by about 6 metres so he has a lot of catching up to do.
The IPPC central estimate is about 300 mm or 12 inches by 2100. The adjusted satellite estimate shows about the same or a bit more than the IPCC.
Amazing SD – I loved this comment:
“PAHAHAHAHAHA !!! A Scottish solar plant? What next? Hydro-electric plants in the Sahara?”
I think any unbiased person knows that cherry picking and torturing proxies plus punting on unknowable ocean heat is all the warmers really have left:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/04/pages2k-multiple-proxy-study-confirms-global-warming-skeptic-modern-temps-not-unprecedented-not-global.html
I have become a parody of alarmism.
http://www.thegwpf.org/central-england-temperature-record-march-2013-tied-12th-coldest-march-1659/
Neville, thanks for that great link on SLR. I have been waiting for the local coastal scientists to get back to me with the storm surge data from ex TC Oswald in Moreton Bay and the Southport Broadwater and as of yesterday they claim they have still not worked it out. Which is pathetic.
From my obs it was about the same as occurred in a 1934 cyclone but I would like to get the official figure.
When the warmers embrace the unknowables like OHC, accelerating SLR is the only realistic check measurement of GW and this paper scotches that BS.
Neville, that paper of Morner’s really shows Church and White up for the alarmists they are.
You guys are just suckers for it – published by who? in a backwater journal to ensure no serious peer review. What a joke – hahahahahahaa
As usual the bloggians just slum around picking up anything no matter how crappy. Pullease.
The guy is into dowsing (as you probably are all too – feel the force – ooooo oooo) and his Maldives stuff was panned by Woodworth – it’s just more of the same old from same old …. yawn.
I see Roy is sick of Dougy too – LOLZ – you clowns are really amazing. Any old iron – any any any old iron (will do)
More importantly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKWSDckFUiw Poor Chrissy …. sadly missed.
” in a backwater journal to ensure no serious peer review. ”
Luke – in the era of the internet it really doesn’t matter where it’s published, if it has errors it will pointed out, just as Karoly didn’t last two days despite being in a prestigious journal.
Let’s see.
So Luke how much SLR do you expect by 2100, 30cm or 1 metre or 100 metres and why?
So who is Dougy and why is Roy sick of him?
Dowsing – hahahahahahaha
“It really doesn’t matter where it’s published” – hahahahahahahaa (oh yes it does – soft reviewing always shows)
OK Lukie Smart Arse, check all those tide gauge measurements and average them out for yourself.
A straight average the 240 tide gauge sites around the world – the MSL column (sea rise/year mm) is: 1.1425 mm/year
Max is at Fort Phrachula Chomklao/Pom Phrachun, Thailand: 20.6 mm/year
Min is at Churchill, Canada: -9.48 mm/year
You’ll find it comes to 99 mm [less than 4 inches] by 2100. And no sign of accelerating SLR.
And, Dipstick, if you are about to dig a 100′ well in rock by hand you would do anything to help you to know whether it was going to produce water or not.
Neville Dougy is someone who is smarter than Lukie. Not hard.
And take it from me and others who have been faced with the same dilemma, it works.
Luke, you are an intellectual snob.
If it’s not published, bad if it’s published by a journal not to your liking, bad.
As John Sayers said, these days you don’t get away with much.
As a matter of fact papers published in the lesser papers, more accessible to the general public will be scrutinized and every mistake pointed out a lot quicker then those published in the high faluting expensive to buy papers.
“Dowsing – hahahahahahaha”
Next you might attack someone for being a christian, God forbid a Catholic even!
Don’t worry about silly Luke. If you read the abstract of the 2012 Gregory, White, Church et al study you soon understand that there is little GMSLR that they are confident enough to be sure of at all. Certainly little difference than the rate in the early 20th century.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
Of course after the event some of these people have rather pretended that this was not the case, but you just have to read it to understand how much uncertainty there is.
Neville, good to see C&W recant somewhat. In 2011 they were bedwetting more than most.
I told Neil White at Deltoid that he knew how to work the Gravy Meter.
Number 4 here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/axel-morner_fig3.png
The east coast of Australia has had virtually no SLR in the last 100 years.
Fort Denison’s highest storm surge was in 1974 and Moreton Bay’s in the 1930s but other than occasional storms, no SLR.
Dowsing, not that I’d know anything about it, is cheap, so who cares.
Some things are not cheap. The Maldives, for example, are super-expensive. No more aqualung cabinet meetings for those silvertails! All the talk of rising seas is bad for the hotel and resort and airport building business. Safe to go back, Morner!
Scottish solar plants, like German solar plants, like Timmy’s Geothermia, are all indirect products of the junk science, gang-review and Publish-or-Perish constantly plugged by our Green Betters. In that sense, it could be said that all these climate “papers” and “studies” – which are treated so seriously till debunked by new speculation after five years – are costing humanity trillions.
But, as I was saying to some other people a couple of days back, let’s have one more climate “study”, a top-grade one with a huge ten-year warranty on debunking.
What about a serious tally of how many cultures have contained a priestly/scholarly class claiming to predict or manipulate climate? One could assess each elite’s success in such an undertaking. How did the Egyptian elites explain/manipulate the centuries of low flooding which ended the Old Kingdom, the decades of overflooding which ended the Middle Kingdom, the return to decades of low flood which ended the New Kingdom. (Just as well there was no coal power back then, or there might have been climate change as well as, er, you know…massive climate shifts.)
One might also examine notions of collective sin, guilt, fear etc amid the populace, and how much wampum or temple offerings these notions have attracted for the enlargement or enrichment of priestly/scholarly classes through the ages.
If it is established that all human cultures have contained elite elements pretending to an understanding and even control of climate which they do not have, we might draw some tentative conclusions about present-day cultures.
He’s your boy – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/dec/02/spectator-sea-level-claims look at ’em go here to defend rubbish.
hahahahahahahha
And that classic story about the fake tree ….. http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=118
you guys …. the gift of science crappiness that keeps giving. Face it you just slum around disinformation sites uncritically recycling any old horse dung that you fancy. All wearing nose rings being led around the ring. Want to buy a harbour bridge hahahahahahahahaa
Robert, so true. We now have the priestly/scholarly class doin’ the man made SLR and CC in the post mod kingdom:
http://www.academia.edu/2580325/MODERN_SHORELINE_CHANGES_ALONG_THE_NILE_DELTA_COAST_AS_AN_IMPACT_OF_CONSTRUCTION_OF_THE_ASWAN_HIGH_DAM
All the models show a rate of SLR that is negative for 89% of the planet’s ice mass ( Antarctica) and positive for 10% of the ice mass. (Greenland)
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.large.jpg
Of course that’s for the next 300 years. So where do we find the ice to produce all that dangerous SLR that all the bedwetters keep fretting about?
Also doesn’t seem to be much global warming to worry about until 2300 either, if you believe these models.
Sea level rise has been treated adequately by Houston and Dean in their seminal 2011 paper which may be read here along with many cross-references including the Veneer and Rahmstorf ‘rebuttal’:
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1?prevSearch=%5BAllField%3A+houston+dean%5D&searchHistoryKey=&
The sea level situation, that is the IPCC has been exaggerating its lying lips off, has been known for a long time:
http://users.uoa.gr/~poulos/thalis/Research_Group_A/Papers/Sea_level_rise_trends_in_the.pdf
Giggle-boy may care to give one of his in-depth, considered responses.
Can’t handle the message hey Lukie?
Gotta take a gun to the messenger?
If you hadn’t been anal gazing all your life and looked out the window occasionally, you’d know how much crap you talk.
cohers, that’s ~ the same result as the average of those tide gauges – 9cm by 2100.
SD, how did they manage to bodgie up SLR as a recent phenomenon? That’s like counting your ears or fingers. Anyone can check, anyone can know.
And Morner…why did he bother? The removal of the tree was more convincing than any “proxy” tree. The Maldives were milking climate monies like Fulton used to milk penalties. I suppose there are always mug refs out there…and there’s always a UN.
Now the Maldives are milking a different kind of money. Now they just love them some jet trails!
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/4039/74770957.jpg
But bring your black Amex!
http://www.theaddressmagazine.com/2011/06/maldives-villas-for-sale/
Two-bob Scientism. Half-educated aspie mugs. They publish, we perish.
Wow, hardly here any more. So much has changed to show that AGW really is a bunch of rent seeking hype. But here is Luke still making a fool of himself, reminding me of a jackass that escaped to a highway and was holding up traffic while it kicked away at passing cars.
It is almost like he is too stupid to actually take in and process new information.
But Jennifer is back posting good stuff, so all is right with the world.
What goonery – you lot are carrying on like you’re already expecting a metre of water? Like WTF? Talk about verballing. Get a job on the NSW force.
And the IPCC says what about the Maldives in their last report?
Of course none of you have read any real science on the issue http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053240/abstract and can’t help but laugh at Spangled’s choice of observation areas.
Sceptics full of scripted talking points. Disengage brain – ask Watts what to think next. Post it – spread it – don’t read it – and bleat like a nong.
Luke – your link does not support your proposition.
sp,
Reality and Luke have been strangers for quite some time.
This link of Luke’s, in the context of his accusatinos about skeptics, seems to be a pretty nice example of projection by Luke.
“and can’t help but laugh at Spangled’s choice of observation areas.”
When you’re in a hole, Lovely Boy, you should stop digging. You don’t seem to have noticed that the ocean is flat and that even in spite of those pretty coloured maps, ocean levels don’t vary by more than a few inches world wide from those external forces such as varying trade wind velocities etc.
When you measure any part of the exposed ocean for ~ 100 years and nothing happens you can be assured that nothing IS happening.
Luke did you read that abstract you linked to? So how does that show dangerous SLR for the western or eastern pacific etc?
Plus tell us how we can stop enso and different changes in the PDO and changes in other ocean oscillations?
Now guys – what proposition? – see you’re all verballing again. And like most nongy sceptics you have assumed what I said, fabricated it, didn’t ask etc. You simply assert.
Instead of drivelling on about alarmist this and that – why not discuss the science ! (and that’s not what is published by tree planting dowsers in backwaters). The science isn’t that alarmist really. So why say it is.
Spangled – clang – sorry the ocean isn’t flat. For you to say that indicates time to give it away ! Now don’t verbal me either – I didn’t say the gradients were metres either – but on any day or decade the ocean is far from flat.
So Spreadeagled – done a comprehensive analysis on the data – nuh ? Just stuck your head out the window to measure a centennial phenomenon. You’ve done nothing on this topic. Instead of blogging you could have gotten the data and dazzled us with an analysis by now and shown Church and White up. But in Spudeaters world, flooded grass patches near the Cleveland pub trump data from around the continent. Not a scientists boot lace matey.
So they just laugh at you (if they even noticed you exist)
Of course none of you have read the paper either – so impoverished as to doing science by abstracts. Bottom feeders and common swill – get some class.
Again we have independent researchers from different cultural backgrounds understanding similar issues. http://www.ocean-sci.net/9/293/2013/os-9-293-2013.pdf Ah the universality of science (alas matched by the universal stupidity of faux scepticism).
Dowsing – hahahahahahahahaa
That’s interesting Luke, lots of influences from monsoons and ENSO…. sea level rises in El Nino and falls during La Nina. Learn something new every day.
Will you concede that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? We need your help to debrief the populace.
“sorry the ocean isn’t flat.”
Lovely Boy, the ocean is about 100 times flatter than a billiard table. Do the maths. The ocean equilibrates around the earth’s C of G and for its size is flatter than anything else on earth.
Those high spots don’t go on increasing indefinitely and what amounts to a few inches is then drawn off by an East Coast Current or similar, returning the ocean roughly to where it came from.
I’ve never seen anyone able to push their bathwater up one end while they dry themselves but maybe you can.
So if SLs are going nowhere on the east coast they are going nowhere world wide as the science is showing more and more.
Kiribati, now that the phosphate and water are low, need a new gig. Can’t pull the luxury dollars, they’re more the Penrith of the Pacific. Those atolls have been trashed. They badly need the computer models, internet search engines, Green bwanas, activists, Bob Carr etc to make a huge blur over the absence of SLR. So far it’s working…but how long do you go on hiding a thing so big and obvious?
Aqualung parliaments? Aqualung footy? Accuse Morner of misogyny or of drugging More Joyous? Lots of hotlinks to sea level articles, to establish that one is aware of…well…how to do hotlinks?
“Dowsing – hahahahahahahahaa”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOo8FCPKH3E
It is one thing to divine water in coastal, wet areas where there is plenty of water near the surface but to go into Sturt’s Stony desert and find it where we had 1,000 sq miles of good Mitchell grass and not a drop of surface water is something else. Also Artesian and Sub-Artesian water was almost impossible to find in that country.
Stations nearby had found well water at ~ 120 feet but the chances of finding the aquifer in that country were extremely remote. It was high and very rocky. The boss was going on holidays with his family so I got the job of putting down the well.
I employed a couple of well-sinkers one of whom looked the spitting image of jesus who said he could find water and being as good as his word he gave a guaranteed price for digging and casing the well with no water, no charge. We supplied the timber for the casing.
We signed a contract and with that in hand he proceeded to the pub on the other side of the station waterhole, handed the contract to the publican in lieu of cash and proceeded to “drink” as much of the well as he could get away with.
When the publican reckoned he had allowed as much drinking credit as was safe he asked me to take these two drunks out to the well site to dry out and start work, which I did.
The site had already been divined, they started work and kept going till they found good water at about 100 feet and carried on to 120 feet with a couple of horizontal shafts to increase the storage.
I hesitate to think what were the odds of striking that aquifer but to do all that work on a no water-no charge contract required some confidence in the ability to divine.
The two well sinkers then headed back to the pub to drink the rest of the well.
We erected a windmill and turned off lots of fat bullocks from that Mitchell grass.
There are more things in heaven and earth than dreamed of in your philosophy.
Luke has either not read it either or is just doing what he does best: regurgitating used cow food.
On those very rare occasions where Luke had something factual to offer, he has tripped over himself to do so.
But he is in default mode, just puking up more bullshit and braying like a jackass.
So once again the world is safe from AGW crap predictions and the believers cannot handle it.
Dowsing – HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA – good grief. What bullshit with more sample size = one home spun yarns (and at the pub – say no more). “I was having a few beers and ….” DO tell.
60cm difference across Pacific on ENSO events Spangled – but you say it’s flat ! sloshy slosh
hunter – I have never seen you make a contribution – usually scumming around Watts or Audit making snarky quips – nary a science comment coz you’re too stupid. And we’re talking really frigging stupid here now. Do you ever have anything of pith and moment to say or are you an uncritical parrot? Faux sceptic cheer squad groupies like you are a dime a dozen matey, so sod orf and spare us your bandwidth.
Poor Robert – if was Gerard Manly-Hopkins he may have been able to read it. Perhaps a dapple dawn-drawn sea level measurement from a gash vermillion altimeter? nah….
Or Homer – rose fingered dawn
That wasn’t “having a few beers” you chump, that was creating a pastoral industry with what was available.
But you wouldn’t know the difference.
“60cm difference across Pacific on ENSO events Spangled – but you say it’s flat ! sloshy slosh”
Ever put a steel straight edge over the Italian slate of a billiard table and run a feeler gauge under it?
You will find that 60cm variation in the length and breadth of the Pacific is still a hundred times flatter than the billiard table.
I’m sure the warmists are exaggerating the rate of SLR. But even if they’re right they forget to tell the poor taxpayers that there is nothing we can do about it for centuries to come.
China, India etc are increasing co2 emissions at incredible rates and the OECD countries are nearly flatlining.
Even if everyone agrees in this warmist cult and we discovered dirt cheap cold fusion tomorrow and changed all the planet’s energy over in a few years we still wouldn’t change the climate or temp or SLR etc for many centuries according to their own projections.
So yes let’s keep using the cheapest energy available for now, but also invest in adaptation, more R&D and new technology as soon as possible.
We won’t change temp, climate or SLR whatever we do anyhow for hundreds of years so the wasteful, super expensive mitigation con and fraud should be abandoned immediately.
Of course first cab off the rank for Oz would be dropping the clueless Gillard govt’s co2 tax following the sept election.
For some real SLR acceleration, maybe the Romantic Poets? By Gerard Manley-Hopkins heyday (post 1860s) the rise had slowed a fair bit. Not much at all in recent times. Sucks if you’re a Kiribati lobbyist. Or if you’re a white-bread urban greenocrat looking to do some paid indignation (with paid holidays, but not to that Kiribati dump).
The new full time activist ” boiling oceans Hansen” is displaying his pig ignorance again.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/27/hansen-unleashed-people-he-disagrees-with-are-neanderthals/#more-85116
Just who is the Neanderthal? He’s either a blatant liar or a first class fool. The Canadian govt are a bright beacon of light shining through the darkness this numbskull would happily enforce on the world.
Just have a look at “boiling oceans” Hansen at 2 mins here and note the deceptive grin as he tries to fool and deliver his vile con.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxfiuKB_R8
Of course his Venus link is his now famous well known party piece. But who would fall for this barking mad garbage?
Geezzz now the looney RS calls Lewandowsky OUTSTANDING. How low can these fraudsters go? Unbelievable.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/royal-society-calls-lewandowsky-outstanding-gives-him-money-loses-more-scientific-credibility/#comments
Another blow to the the positive feedback theory of AGW.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/new-data-falsifies-basis-of-man-made.html
New NASA data shows that as co2 levels increase global water vapour content falls. See graph at link.
Looks like we really are looking at a negative feedback in the system.
Miskolczi vindicated again.
Plants retain water at higher CO2 levels; one possible mechanism, plus MEP.
I just thought somebody should show where the IPCC 2007 report expects SLR to come from over the 21st century.
Here I’m quoting Lomborg’s references to the IPCC on pages 77 to 78 in “Cool It.”
The IPCC central estimate is 29cm ( nearly 1 foot)
He quotes the IPCC estimate of 23cm due to warmer water expanding.
He quotes the IPCC estimate of 8cmm from melting glaciers and ice caps.
He quotes the IPCC estimate that Greenland will contribute a further 3.5 cm.
Then add up this total and we get 34.5cm by 2100. But because of increased precipitation Antarctica will accumulate more ice and reduce SLs 5.5cm by 2100.
Therefore subtract 5.5cm from 34.5cm and we return to the IPCC central estimate of 29cm by 2100.
Remember these are the measurements as used by the IPCC in their 2007 report. Lomborg just explains how they arrive at their 29cm estimate.
But who knows what that central estimate might be in the IPCC 5th report. Any ideas?
Neville’s level of science “I’m sure”. What drivel.
Just thought I’d include this extra info and again quoting the IPCC from bottom of page 77 ” Cool It”.
The IPCC cites the TOTAL COST of USA national protection and property abandonment for a 1 metre SLR by 2100 is only 5 to 6 billion $ over the entire century.
Remember this is more than 3 times the 29cm of the 2007 IPCC central estimate. Just proves again how easy and cheap adaptation and new technology is compared to the delusional nonsense force fed to us by the MSM.
GEEEZZZ in the clueless Labor party’s budget they don’t even include the 40 to 90 billion $ cost of the (back of the envelope ) NBN fraud.
So what’s so frightening about the most expensive coastline property on the planet being protected for just 6 billion $ over the next 100 years?
This is a fraud from start to finish and it’s just a pity that only a tiny proportion of the electorate has any idea what’s going on.
What am I supposed to be sure of Luke? Also how about starting to grow a testicle and tell us what the problem is and how you would fix it?
Should be good for a giggle. But please include the time taken into the future before you return us to the LIA. Is it hundreds or thousands of years?
Don’t forget the OZ numbers —5% of 1.2% by 2020 and a big proportion to be found buying fraudulent co2 certificates from all the corrupted markets.
Might pay to look at Ridley’s greening of the planet video before you start.
Steve McIntyre finds more upside down data use from a new study. Seems like Luke’s peer review is really mate’s review once again. Unbelievable. But where is their shame?
http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/28/gifford-miller-vs-upside-down-kaufman/#more-17908
luke, you’ll be proud of this; the NMH is running a poll about whether Lake Macquarie council’s plan to demolish lake-side homes to protect them against sea level rise is a good idea or not; vote here folks:
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1462661/poll-lake-houses-demolition-plan/?cs=305
Re. demolishing homes
If there is a genuine risk I can’t see anything wrong with the plan, but the question
must be asked, is the risk genuine?
Having served a term as a councillor I can safely say that councillors in general aren’t the brightest sparklers on the chrismas tree.
Ambitious, power-hungry self-serving? Most of them, yes, up to date with science, hardly.
What will happen if after all the heartache, dislocation and community expense, etc. it will turn out to be a false alarm?
Who is going to shoulder the blame and the expense then?
I think contemplating this action is a bit premature
It was April and the Aboriginals in a remote part of Northern Australia asked their new elder if the coming winter was going to be cold or mild.
Since he was an elder in a modern community he had never been taught the old secrets. When he looked at the sky he couldn’t tell what the winter was going to be like.
Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, he told his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members of the tribe should collect firewood to be prepared. But being a practical leader, after several days he had an idea.
He walked out to the telephone booth on the highway, called the Bureau of Meteorology and asked, ‘Is the coming winter in this area going to be cold?’
The meteorologist responded, ‘It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold..’
So the elder went back to his people and told them to collect even more wood in order to be prepared.
A week later he called the Bureau of Meteorology again. ‘Does it still look like it is going to be a very cold winter?’
The meteorologist again replied, ‘Yes, it’s going to be a very cold winter.’
The elder again went back to his community and ordered them to collect every scrap of firewood they could find.
Two weeks later the elder called the Bureau again. ‘Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?’ he asked.
‘Absolutely,’ the man replied. ‘It’s looking more and more like it is going to be one of the coldest winters ever.’
‘How can you be so sure?’ the elder asked.
The weatherman replied, ‘Our satellites have reported that the Aboriginals in the north are collecting firewood like crazy, and that’s always a sure sign.’
winter in the north is the best time of the year, seldom rains and the temps vary between 18c – 32c. wonderful weather.
I agree John,
One day perfect and the next better. Much less humidity in the winter months as well.
Funny yarn SP.
John and Deb, yeah, hate to be dead this weather. Had a class-of-’52 school reunion today and sadly a few are.
cohers, that’s a crazy idea to even consider demolishing lakeside homes. They sound like cronies of Luke’s.
Why not just check the tide gauges. You can see from the tide-marks that there’s nothing happening.
But then I suppose the real world issues forth from the mouths of consensual scientists and their easy conned converts, not what is evident to the hoi polloi.
Amazing these AGW frauds just keep keeping on. News that Fisker Automotive has just gone bust after burning through $1.3 billion at a cost of $660,000 for each electric vehicle produced.
http://www.thegwpf.org/green-madness-fisker-spent-660000-103000-electric-car/
Mind you each car only sold for $103,000 or only one sixth of the cost to produce them. How long can this worldwide madness persist.
Some Russian scientists think we could face 200 to 250 years of global cooling. Who knows.
http://www.thegwpf.org/russian-scientists-we-face-cooling-period-200-250-years/
I believe the Russians, Neville. Its hubris to think we could effect our climate.
Joe Romm plays the fool one more time. If we don’t do something about AGW it’ll be the end of modern civilization.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/29/joe-romm-predicts-all-but-certain-ruin-for-modern-civilization-from-a-noaa-fisheries-press-release/#more-85200
What an embarrassment to the USA.
JO Nova has a good post that exposes more of the rorts and corruption involved in the fraudulent renewable energy industries.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/imaginary-solar-panels-rort-government-renewables-scheme/#comments
Of course this doesn’t include hydro energy a really useful, reliable, cheap form of renewable power.
Just have a look at the grid performance of clueless wind energy to understand the full impact this fraudulent energy generation will have on the grid in the future.
This cost of endless, wasted billions $ into the future won’t make a scrap of difference to climate or temp for many hundreds or perhaps thousands of years.
Just ask Flannery.
A first hand report of an Al Gore groupie presentation in NZ. I’ve only had a short experience of such a presentation and it was unbelievably dreadful. Beyond belief.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/29/an-evening-with-catherine-leining/#more-85218
So here’s a question, was the weather /climate better before 1990 than since? Why, because a list of warmists from Hansen etc tell us that 350 ppmv is the best level of co2 for our planet.
Co2 reached 350ppmv about 1990 so therefore all the previous W/Climate must have been appreciably better than after 1990.
Because all the warmists insist that 350ppmv is best for us.
Steve McIntyre is still finding that some of the Kaufman contaminated data is still being used in later studies years after he first made them aware of the problems.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/29/more-kaufman-contamination/#more-17915
This is at the very core of Luke’s nonsense about proper peer review. This data has been contaminated by modern farming practices and yet they still try to decieve.
Of course in the past Steve found that Mann unbelievably used the Tiljander site data upside down.
Steve says in this post that even REAL scientists should be able to understand. In fact these are the REAL JOKE peer reviewers. They are clueless, caught not once but many times.
While I have a very low opinion of today’s “peer review” processs, I don’t believe it’s the role of a reviewer, even if all data and code is provided, to duplicate the results of the paper.
A review by necessity, time and other constrains, will only concern the general methodology of how the results were obtained.
How can a reviewer verify the data? Go back and collect it himself again?
But I agree, once the mistakes are pointed out it’s bad form to ignore the warning and use dodgy data.
On top of that the author usually knows if he is using unreliable data.
Johnathon I agree we can all be caught once, but there is no excuse to keep passing subsequent studies using the same contaminated sources.
Either these people are just stupid fools or they are corrupted in some way.
They also don’t credit Steve’s work at all, in fact we know that Mann etc denigrate him every chance they get.
They should all be sacked as far as I’m concerned.
BTW it looks like Hansen has conceded that burning more coal etc leads to a stronger more glutinous biosphere that actually has more sinks to absorb more co2 from the atmosphere.
He must have been viewing Ridley’s greening the planet video.
Here is that Hansen link.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/hansens-mea-culpa-says-man-made-global.html
Neville I may be wrong about the Younger Dryas having come about because of an extraterrestrial bombardment …. it looks like our star was responsible after all.
http://www.falw.vu/~renh/pdf/Renssen-etal-QI-2000.pdf
There appears to be a long lag with CO2 chasing temps.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
EG thanks for that study. Amazing if it could be the sun and I note that paper is dated 2000.
But why did the Younger dryas end so abruptly, a warming of 10c in just 10 years? Amazing to think of the forcing that could achieve that rate of warming.
We’re panicing because the planet has warmed 0.7c in the last 100+ years and after the end of a minor ice age. Hardly unprecedented.
Hi Neville,
The bit at the end of the NZ review about the vegan and the B 12 pills. Have they ever studied how they make them ?
Sounds even worse for the “planet ” than cow farts. Given how many we would need.
Jennifer,
I apologize. I engaged in silly and rude behavior here on yhour thread.
It will not happen again.
Respectfully,
‘hunter’
No hockey stick in Chile indicates we maybe witnessing a see-saw effect.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/new-paper-finds-another-non-hockey_6.html
Good point Neville, CO2 had no part to play in the Younger Dryas.
What dragged us out of the depths? Perhaps it was Gaia, but I prefer a rational, scientific explanation.
Social studies of science may shed some light on the politics of science, but it has little to say about the science itself.
The report gives examples of “dissenting” papers, “just to give a hint about the extent and serious ongoing questioning and discussion on AGW and climate change”. I agree that the claimed dangers of AGW aren’t based on solid science, and that our current understanding of climate change, causes and effects is very limited. But that doesn’t mean that every paper against AGW should be taken seriously.
– Two Germans claiming to refute the “atmospheric greenhouse conjecture” because it violates the laws of physics and thermodynamics… Being a physicist only means you passed your exams, doesn’t mean you understood what you read. Not sure who’s worst, these two or physicists claiming the WTC towers were demolished with neutron bombs.
– “Atmospheric CO2 variations generally follow changes in temperature and other climatic variables rather than preceding them”: true, but doesn’t disprove anything. CO2 rise doesn’t just “happen”, there must be a cause, be it temperature rise, burning fossil fuels… And A causing B doesn’t mean B can’t cause A. If you always start a fire with a match, that doesn’t mean you can’t light a match with a fire.
– “440 Myr ago atmospheric P Co2 was ~ 16 times higher than today. However, this enhanced level of atmospheric CO2 does not seem to have been accompanied by unusually warm temperatures in the tropics, and in fact may have been contemporaneous with high-latitude continental glaciation on Gondwanaland.” I miss the words global temperature. Seems it was 6°C, and sea levels +200m, higher.
– “Atmospheric Oscillations do not Explain the Temperature-Industrialization Correlation”: Could have merit, don’t know. But I distrust someone whose religious beliefs seem to exclude the possibility of AGW, or at least AGW with adverse effects. McKitrick is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance’s Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming: “Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting”.
– “A statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable?” Valid point, I have some reservations about “history sciences” like paleoclimatology. And if these temperatures are accurate, then we still have to explain them. If our models can’t explain the past, they can’t predict the future.
– “Insignificant change in Antarctic snowmelt volume since 1979”: Doesn’t say anything about total amount of meltwater, subsurface melting is the major contributor to ice shelves thinning. The authors don’t consider it to conflict with GW.
– “Does a Global Temperature Exist? Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. The purpose of this paper was to explain the fundamental meaninglessness of so-called global temperature data. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. “:
They give the example of a glass of cold water and a cup of hot coffee, using four different definitions for the average temperature, showing that one may show heating while another shows cooling. “physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them”? Indeed, since the obvious option wasn’t there: the weighted average i.e. the temperature you get when you mix the water with the coffee (ignoring temperature dependence of specific heat and other details). They then go on to argue that “warming” or “cooling” have no meaning when talking about climate, you can’t compare different periods in earth history and say that one was warmer or colder than the other, you can only compare for example Venus with Earth, because the temperature ranges don’t overlap… Seems like just an attempt to get rid of the term “global warming”. With a few of the more basic formulas thrown in. Can’t have thermodynamics without partial differential equations…
Once politics and public opinion gets involved, science suffers. The Al Gore circus was bad, but compared to some of those papers…